Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Modeling Languages: metrics and assessing tools

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 1206.4477 v1 pith:KQFKXOXP submitted 2012-06-20 cs.SE

Modeling Languages: metrics and assessing tools

classification cs.SE
keywords metricsmodelingsoftwaretoolsdevelopmentmustqualityassess
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Any traditional engineering field has metrics to rigorously assess the quality of their products. Engineers know that the output must satisfy the requirements, must comply with the production and market rules, and must be competitive. Professionals in the new field of software engineering started a few years ago to define metrics to appraise their product: individual programs and software systems. This concern motivates the need to assess not only the outcome but also the process and tools employed in its development. In this context, assessing the quality of programming languages is a legitimate objective; in a similar way, it makes sense to be concerned with models and modeling approaches, as more and more people start the software development process by a modeling phase. In this paper we introduce and motivate the assessment of models quality in the Software Development cycle. After the general discussion of this topic, we focus the attention on the most popular modeling language -- the UML -- presenting metrics. Through a Case-Study, we present and explore two tools. To conclude we identify what is still lacking in the tools side.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.